Kaffe (cough-uh)
I'm a cup of coffee
New Afrikan
Read Walter Rodney!
https://twitter.com/historic_ly/status/1329509412390756355?t=3TT7BfilHocJEYTJVYpOmg&s=19
Hungary's oppressed nobility started an anti-Semitic revolt against the Communist Party who asked for assistance from the Soviets because the country was still war torn and rebuilding.
I've written in my comments that my people are colonized and subject to genocide, I'm not a white settler, I'm Black. I understand the outlook that settlers have a false nation unworthy of upholding, I agree, but I do not think they need to be stripped of living their lives as human beings in the manner they choose as long as it fits the framework of Decolonization.
I comment on my predictions and expectations of settlers a lot, this time I'm on the optimistic side that we'd hope for more settlers to be deeply concerned about the future generations. It's fucked up for settlers to come here, trash the place, and when it comes time to clean up they'd rather die out than join the multi generational effort to fix this place. We don't plan for their help but it would be a quicker process with more hands. 🤷🏽♀️
Decolonization also means restoring the humanity of the colonizers.
Albeit not peacefully 😏
The loosest estimate puts 250k Ukrainians working for the nationalists/Nazis. It was not very many and most nationalists were bourgeois or kulak peasants. 7 million Ukrainians served in the Red Army.
The cities of what is now Western Ukraine were mostly stocked with a Polish bourgeoisie and a Jewish proletariat surrounded by Ukrainian peasants.
Actually, most of the fascists in Ukraine are diaspora from the civil war and WW2. The Whites and Nazis who made deals with the US and UK, settled in the US, Canada, and Australia. They took over existing diaspora communities with deep money and have been funding Fascism in Ukraine. The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is a major international vehicle for Ukrainian Fascism and in fact funded the SS Galician Division. They continue to fund PLAST nationalist youth camps in the diaspora and independent Ukraine. The Bourgeoisie in exile came back after the collapse and bought up the country.
Journalist Moss Robeson has a series of articles called VictimsOfCommunism and the Bandera Lobby that covers fascist diaspora of the Eastern block countries, especially Ukraine. He reports the real people who are pulling the strings in the Ukraine Neo-Colony.
This is clearly the words of someone who has no community or culture to cling to, one born nation-less and with a position to lose. For me contributing to my community in what's necessary of me benefits everyone and all children. For colonized peoples there is a collective worth protecting as it protects ourselves as individuals.
It's honestly sounding like you have internalized individualism. Like I said it's fine to not want children and to not have them, but know that people having children is necessary for your survival, and you have a role to play in the survival of their children.
Everyone has a role to play as we are social beings. Our society as structured alienates us from the benefits of socialized production but these conditions are definite and mutable. Have some revolutionary optimism.
No I'm saying nations under genocidal conditions are going to have kids because they want their society to continue, it's nothing about soldiers and I really don't like that you would reduce the will to survive genocide as "creating soldiers". Should Palestinians give up children not knowing if they'll be bombed tomorrow? Do you shame, pity them for having more kids? Why should they let Israel succeed in killing the idea of Palestinians?
Reproductive labor is necessary labor for society to function. People having less kids because they can focus resources towards fewer children, those conditions only exist for the Imperialist and bourgeois strata. For most of the world having many kids is necessary for the survival of the community.
Easy for you to say when your people aren't actively subjected to genocide. The people who fight for their children's futures have little trust in the leadership of people who've already given up.
Our job today is to make sure the children born yesterday are to be fed tomorrow and when they grow into adults their role will be the same.
Yeah those things require revolution to fix
Do we allow the bourgeoisie to practice eugenics on our classes or do we fight back?
If you think we can revolution why not have kids? I'm saying this only if such worries are preventing you from having kids that you would want to have otherwise. I understand it's not for everyone but I want to push back on people who've accepted defeat.
Settler class only leaves when settler colonialism does. Decolonization takes a long time so settlers will remain. Like in SA the settlers can hand over state power and remain settlers while keeping their stolen property. We won't make that same mistake and tbh that mistake only happened because the US exists, for our turn it won't.
The settler identity is clearly less mutable than property relation to production. One does not simply change nationality, nor their "race".
There are more prisoners than people in the military. There are 40 million Africans in the US alone, and we have the historical impetus in national liberation, so do the indigenous nations who also outnumber the US military. The class structure of the military also places most of the colonially sourced soldiers as the majority of enlistees. The US military shipped disabled black men to Vietnam because they couldn't field white middle class men. Settlers just won't fight and if we use Indigenous examples against the US we can see many battles won by smaller indigenous armies than their European opposition. From this history we also see rapid class struggle and alliances within the indigenous peoples and the largest ones had defeated the settlers multiple times with the settlers resorting to ecocide and slaughtering camps of women and children. 40 million buffalo killed to defeat the Oceti Sakowin, this would blowback as the dust bow btw.
As we see in Palestine, settlers only feel powerful when they can shoot children, whether IDF soldier, a US cop, or someone like Zimmerman. Mass support from settlers is that variable we shall not seek "perfection" of. They will join us when they can see the writing on the wall. For now we move building our own communities up on the basis of trust and cooperation. Which btw, native nations are already providing services and jobs to settlers and the BP fed kids of any color. We focus on the most oppressed segments of society and the ones with historical impetus for fighting against Imperialism, something Labor Aristocracy doesn't have until the conditions strip them of that title. We focus on youth of any background as well, as youth always have the opportunity to change the world for the better.
We just won't make the mistakes of relying on settlers again. Even in the wars of the past there were settler allies who betrayed us, so we prepare our revolution for such events. Simple as.
This Haywood piece, while I find much lacking, tackles the root of MLism applied to Turtle Island. The USA is a settler state and the bastion of Imperialism, outside of fleeing and fighting on the side of 3rd world workers, there isn't much Communists here can do besides fight the US from inside. There are specific on continent forces that uphold global Imperialism and allow the US to behave the way it does, and indigenous people are at the fore-front of contesting US, Canadian, and Mexican monopoly extraction that fuels empire. So even from a tactical standpoint, Communists are failing the climate and the victims of imperialism by ignoring contests at home and not supporting indigenous nations. Africans in the US like natives are subject to genocide, and have a historical orientation against the settler state. Like Haywood says an African contest in the western continents will shred America to pieces, giving our comrades around the world a chance to breathe, build up, and assist us in defeating empire. The CPUSA failed to vanguard the 50s and 60s and the root of this is revisionism that started in the early 50s. By tailing the Liberal Assimilationists on the Negro Question the CPUSA had in actuality supported the slow genocide of African cultures for the safety of Imperialism, since then where have we found ourselves? Mass institutionalization of Africans, mass sterilization, mass homelessness, mass displacement, and our leaders murdered, just as Haywood predicted. The counter revolution against Africans during the second Red Scare ushered in the uni-polar world, we must see that the failures of socalled vanguards here had global consequences.
no, but a small sliver of mostly white "leftists" have picked up malthusianism but this largely exists due to their misunderstanding of reality, like yt supremacists they just accept the "not enough room for more people" lie of Imperialism
Well bickering over AES is what settler Communists do best, because they don't study conditions. We colonized Communists are just being up front in saying that we don't believe a majoritarian revolution that settlers think must happen will ever happen, and that the revolution will come from the bottom segments of the masses and that most of the settler population will go where the wind blows. Why do we think this? Because the average settler worker in the US is not a productive laborer and is actually staffing the Imperialist distribution network. The White Proletariat? article covers this in the 80s and 90s but the situation has not significantly changed besides even more workers being white collar. First things first we will destroy the American and later the Canadian, and Mexican states and we will not allow the settlers to rebuild a state. The JDPON will necessarily be built by the nat-lib struggles and Americans will never have a sovereign state again. These are facts that cannot be overcome because allowing Americans a state is a reformation rather than a revolution.
The primary contradiction is settler colonialism, if this is not tackled then we have not succeeded in revolution. So we know what goals are mandatory, we don't expect perfection, but we will hold settlers to high standards before they touch revolutionary power.
I mean, you're free to develop a theory for how settlers can achieve socialism, but again we do not wait around and our theory does not rely on their support. We have yet to see one come out of the settler (or Imperialist European) working class for its 300 year existence.
Yes and we can and should compare movements of some classes compared to others. The settler class has proven itself incapable of resisting opportunism. MLs in the core need to focus on the classes with revolutionary outlook. Far too many do zero study of the conditions here.
it seems like the homegrown rpg round as well as the AGTMs used by Hezbollah are popping Israeli tanks left and right. It really looks like armor will not be reliable for Israeli offense.
The EZLN is an indigenous nat-lib movement, rejecting the idea that their lands can be controlled by the Mexican government. Many of the nations in the US and Canada had similarly fought with settlers and armies to maintain their lands, the reservation system is the residue of those conflicts, a suspended state of war.
If you have to say “we were successful until…”, how successful were you, really?
This can be said for any revolution, does the collapse of the USSR deny tested praxis of the Bolsheviks? The existing parties dominated by settlers have yet to provide a theory for revolution that moves beyond somehow changing the minds of the American workers, overwhelmingly labor aristocracy and reproducing with more labor from overseas than they put in. They haven't been able to change many minds; there are some 200k "Socialists" between the ML parties and the DSA, this is smaller than the number of Dine people and dwarfed by the number of Hawaiians who are building an alternative state in opposition to the American occupation. Dozens of millions of Americans straight up don't engage in electoral politics yet the Communists can't seem to make a dent there. The Fish Wars which saw collaboration with what would become the American Indian Movement and the Black Panthers got real wins in forcing the states to recognize treaty law. AIM and the Panthers attracted the most brutal state oppression, not disconnected from the general value American society assigns to black and indigenous bodies, and nothing of the sort has ever been directed at the CPUSA leadership as what befell the Panthers. The CPUSA fell into revisionism and tailed the Liberal Assimilationist line of the so-called "Black Bourgeoisie" which Frazier had proven was lying about the conditions of Black people in the US for the benefit of the Imperialist Settlers. This is not to say that amount of oppression is directly associated with revolutionary-ness, but that AIM and the BP clearly upset the settler order in a way in which Communist parties lead by settlers and white-dominated trade unions never could, and that opportunism for groups capable of upholding the settler order just doesn't exist for groups like AIM and the BP.
Indigenous protests have been at the vanguard of the environmental "movement" and indigenous lands have almost all of the biodiversity on the continent and indigenous nations are at the fore-front of conservation and environmental science. Black people are at the fore-front of politics surrounding police and have mobilized the largest protests in US history. We focus on black and indigenous people (with special attention towards Latinx and migrant workers given their super-exploitation) because these groups are most readily organized on an anti-Colonial basis. More than half of the settlers frankly live good and have little interest in unsettling the colonial order. This is why our direction needs to build up the most oppressed spectrum of workers in solidarity with those who do not fit in settler-society for one reason or another, push these community building movements into direct conflict with the settler order and stress the contradictions of settler-colonial Imperialism, like what the Palestinian Resistance is doing as we speak, and what the EFF is pushing to do in South Africa, the forms of our struggles differ by conditions but the dynamics are the same, a (class) war of national liberation for decolonization. We just won't see the level of organization from settlers in reaction required to defend themselves from us, our prediction is similar to that of what we are seeing in "Israel", the settlers will run and hide while their society collapses under its own contradictions. We will be there for the refugee settlers who wish to experience a different road.
Settlers as a book just shows actually existing history of the labor movement and choices made by settlers. Today we can see a deep lack in investigation of conditions from the "Communists" here. We will work with settlers who are sympathetic towards us but we will not rely on their assistance, with our without them we will fight.
Critical support to Roderic from Red Sails while he tries to convince Johnstone to engage with scientific theories surrounding propaganda and political behavior (Marxism).
Brainwashing theory doesn't hold up to reality so treating it as a model of why Americans and other European diaspora are passive to supportive of Imperialism is a misdiagnosis and leads to unreliable treatment. Counter propaganda is only so effective and is never going to threaten Empire and class society in general.
So tbh, if she doesn't want to accept criticism from Marxists then we should really just ignore her and others like her. We need to put our own theories out to people we are organizing around and for.
When I met my former coworker for the first time, she said material conditions and that's when I knew.
Iraqi Ba'athists self crit of their first 5 years in power: https://www.marxists.org/history/iraq/baath/index.htm
It's a good outline of their views and their description of the region and country's role.
Ba'athists are not chauvinists they are Arab nationalists, wanting to unite the Arabic speaking peoples against colonialism. However, they live in diverse countries with significant numbers of non-Arabic cultures. Previous iterations of the Arab Nationlist movement like the Nasserists wanted to immediately unite Arab majority countries while the Ba'athists realized they need to first unite the cultures within their countries and then building a greater indigenous state in the region to fight European (and Turk) colonialism. So the Ba'ath in Iraq started a popular front with the Kurdish communities, but the tensions with Kurds, Arabs, and Persians in the Levant was already strained by Imperialist strategy before the Ba'ath seized power. The popular front was in the right direction of peace and unity until the war with a Iran, who's new government hated the Arab socialists.
Now, on the gas attacks, we have to know a few things. The US only blamed Iraq for the attacks retroactively, and in fact initially blamed Iran. The only witnesses of the attacks from the outside were Iranian journalists, working alongside British "journalists". When the US switched to blame Iraq, in preparation for the sanctions they would lay on Iraq in the 90s to choke out the Ba'ath, they claimed that they knew it was Iraq the whole time and only blamed Iran because Iraq was their "ally". Neither Iraq nor Iran ever claimed the US to be an ally. Iraq had been fighting Kurdish insurgents who were being organized by US/UK and Iranian intelligence, Iraq had real reasons to be fighting in Kurdish territory in the north. The Iranians had been occupying the village up until the day of the attack, where they quietly retreated in the morning before the attack. Now we also have the false flag accusations against Syria and Libya, where British intelligence worked with the so-called White Helmets to fabricate a chemical attack to justify the American occupation in the Kurdish region of Syria as well as NATO funding for ISIS, I mean the "moderate rebels".
A lot of these attacks towards the Ba'aths come retroactively. To me, an obvious attempt to discredit the Ba'ath based on inflating the "relationship" between the US and Iraq. By pretending to be an ally of Iraq, and acknowledging some of the US's bad history of intervention, they were able to divide the left on Iraq and later Libya and Syria. "We were bad but now we are good and we gotta get rid of the monsters we've accidentally created while doing realpolitik". I think even people like Parenti fell for this. Meanwhile the only real theme in these events is that the US and British supported rebels against anti-Imperialists governments wherever they could.
go on dates with your wife